valMEhttps://valme.io/
//valme.io/rss/all/tag/jobs/en-usSun, 15 Sep 2019 05:11:20 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/k9sqs/politicians-causing-problems-in-politics-put-them-on-pay-for-performance
In the business world, most workers receive a base salary and then salary increases or bonuses based on performance. Performance can be measured by various factors, including company performance, individual performance, division performance, and the like. For the most part, and unless you have a union contract, there really aren't any guarantees for your salary, or even that you'll have a job.

Needless to say, politics don't work like business.

We have spent millions of dollars, some of it out of our own pockets, to get to Washington... We did not come here to be treated like teachers. - House Speaker John Boehner

For example, in the US, the average salary for someone in Congress is $174,000/year, with the average Senator making $193,400/year. For the most part, they don't need to do anything to get that salary. Whether they show up for work or not, whether they accomplish what they said they would or not, whether they vote or not... none of it matters. In other words, politicians don't get paid for performance. To add insult to injury, they get to set their own pay (per the Constitution) and get an automatic cost of living increase each year. Not a bad gig if you can get it.

Here's an idea: make politicians' pay based on their performance. For example, what they promise on the campaign trail would be their commitments. Tie pay to accomplishing each one. The Constitution has a list of powers politicians are responsible for performing - if they don't perform one of them, they lose salary. If the laws they pass do the opposite of what they were intended to do, they pay the price too. If the government runs a deficit, they don't get paid. If crime rates go up, salaries go down. If unemployment goes up, their pay is docked. Economy experiences a recession? Politicians feel the pain in their pockets too. And so on.

What do you think would happen if politicians' salaries were tied to performance? What are the problems with this idea? Which politicians would support this? As politicians would have to be the ones to vote on it, is this a non-starter in the first place? Do you think lobbyists would gain power with such an idea? Isn't it time to start considering ideas that really punish politicians for underperformance more so than just not re-electing them? Should we seriously consider this proposal, which is supposed to be satire from funnyman Andy Borowitz, as a real alternative?

A government think-tank today proposed a controversial new law, "No Politician Left Behind," which would pay congressmen solely on the basis of performance.

The law, which was proposed by the University of Minnesota's Institute of Government, "would make a serious dent in the Federal deficit because few if any congressmen would ever have to be paid," said the Institute's director, Davis Logsdon.

"Right now, congressmen get paid even when they storm out of budget negotiations in a hissy fit," Mr. Logsdon said. "Under this new law, the rule would be, no budget, no paycheck."

The idea of being paid per accomplishment drew howls of protest from lawmakers, many claiming that if the law were enacted it would result in their financial ruin.

]]>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:25:28 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/k9sqs/politicians-causing-problems-in-politics-put-them-on-pay-for-performancebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/b4sqs/college-conspiracy-a-worthless-piece-of-paper-called-a-college-degree
James Fenimore Cooper once said: "All greatness of character is dependent on individuality. The man who has no other existence than that which he partakes in common with all around him, will never have any other than an existence of mediocrity." In my mind, this brings up an interesting question: how do we learn to be different so that we don't live in mediocrity?

Thinking is man's distinctive characteristic. It is within our own nature as a species, and it brings us the sovereignty of our race and our land. For humans, it is critical thinking that allows us to thrive.

Since the beginning of human existence, man has attempted to share cultural values, knowledge, new formulas, and inventions in order to learn new abilities for his survival and enjoyment. The development of writing and reading was used as a tool to pass along this knowledge and, as a result, many schools were built. So, the sole purpose of education can be summarized in a simple statement: learning to live and prosper.

But, if we look at the current state of education, it seems that it no longer serves that purpose. Kids don't know how to achieve in the most basic areas, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. To prevent themselves from shame, schools cheat and lower their proficiency standards. Nowadays, it seems the only purpose of schools is preparing children to go to college - a place where they won't develop enough skills to find a job, even in the most requested areas. Additionally, for most students, the price of college is unaffordable (unless you're willing to sell an organ).

Despite this, 70% of high school graduates enroll in college, while two-thirds of college students are graduating with an average of $24,000 in debt. So, it doesn't seem like a very wise decision to enroll in college: you're effectively camouflaging yourself into the crowd, not learning how to think critically, and spending years not developing skills enough to get a job that will payoff your debt. Interestingly enough, student loans are the easiest loan to receive in the US, as the state seems to give them to everyone regardless of reason (e.g., grades, job prospects). This is one of the reasons tuition prices continue to go so high. And when students can't payoff their loans, there are certain circumstances where your loans can be paid for by the government (which really means that taxpayers pay for them through higher taxes). In the video, they predict that taxpayers eventually will pay for all tuition loans for these worthless educations.

Americans really need to start rethinking the purpose of college education. With the unemployment level in America actually around 22%, the best it seems many college graduates can do is find jobs in places where a degree isn't required (if they can find jobs at all). We would be better-off remembering that education is about learning to live and prosper. I don't know about you but, for me, I enjoy living more when I have a job and am not in debt.

What do you think the purpose of education is nowadays? If you went to college, how did you pay for it and solve your economic problems after graduating? What do you think about the consequences of the government providing easy loans for college? What do you think are better alternatives than going to college?

"You have to have a certain kind of brain to understand the dead language that they write in textbooks. But they brainwash you from a little kid up, so that you buy into the system; and you get good grades, and you study hard, and then you become a member of the total system. No freedom. You don't know how to think, because they told you how to think their way." (Gerald Celente)

...Over just a two-year period, from December of 2007 through December of 2009, 8,363,000 jobs in America were lost, or 6.1% of total jobs. One year later, in December of 2010, thanks to the Federal Reserve and the US government spending $4.6 trillion on ballots, stimulus programs, and other government spending, 1,124,000 jobs in America or 0.9% of total jobs have been recovered. That is over $4,000,000 spent for each job created.

...College students borrowed $106 billion in total student loans for the 2009-2010 for school year, up from $96 billion in 2008-2009, $94 billion in 2007-2008, $87 billion in 2006-2007, and $83 Billion in 2005-2006. Total student loan debt in the US currently stands at $830 billion and now exceeds credit card debt...

Today, two-thirds of students are graduating college with an average student loan debt of $24,000 and the government is now making the situation many times worse by completely taking over the student loan business... Now, all students will receive their loans directly from the government at artificially low interest rates...

With all the modern technological advances the world has been experiencing in recent years, the cost of a quality education in America should be getting cheaper. It is now cheaper to purchase a plasma television or laptop computer than years ago because the government doesn't subsidize purchases of these products. If there was a true, free market in college education, colleges would be figuring out more cost efficient ways to educate students using modern technology in order to bring tuitions down, and compete against each other for the enrollment of students.

By guaranteeing student loans and providing too much aid to students, the US government destroyed the free market in college education. One NIA member who is 50% owner of a private vocational school tells us that he is legally forced to raise tuitions every time the government raises financial aid to students. The government's 90/10 rule mandates that at least 10% of a private for-profit college's income comes from non-federal government sources. Therefore, private for-profit colleges must keep raising tuitions in order to stay within the 90/10 rule. The government needs to get out of the education business completely, and allow private banks to re-enter the market and compete against each other in order to offer loans at reasonable interest rates to students who have the best ability to pay them back...

"If we were doing such a wonderful job and producing such geniuses coming out of universities, do you think we'd be in the problems that we're in now? Do you think that we would be among the most unhealthy nation of people in developed nations? Do you think that we would be gobbling down junk food? Do you think that we would be prescription drug addicts as a society? Do you think that we would be in the greatest recession, that's heading toward the greatest depression? Do you think we would be in Iraq and wasting trillions of dollars fighting losing wars in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan? Do you think that we would have presidents and senators, congressmen and legislators, of such low mentality that we have now? ...Look what American universities have produced." (Gerald Celente)"

No doubt many in today's economy feel that way. Perhaps we can learn from Monty Python to look upon these sordid days as being happy since, as we are told, money doesn't buy you happiness. Having said that, optimism, hope, and faith don't pay the bills either. So many seemingly have nothing to do; almost as if they haven't any direction or encouragement to take action. Some might even choose to become nihilists.

After being laid off, many have taken significantly lower paying jobs (if they've even been able to secure a job at all). When they complain, the typical mantra is "well, be thankful for what you have." Bing Crosby even sang it to us in beautiful verse:

"When I'm worried and I can't sleep

I count my blessings instead of sheep

And I fall asleep counting my blessings."

We are often told to compare our situation to those who are less fortunate - those who don't have a job, or don't have their health, or are hungry, or are living on the street, or can't afford to pay their bills, and the like. We're coached to be thankful that we're alive. It's as if knowing that others are suffering helps us feel better about ourselves. In other words, our happiness in life is really just a matter of perspective.

Are happiness and suffering just matters of perspective? Do you find it irritating when told to be thankful for what you have? When times are tough, how do you deal? Do you compare yourself to others? Is it proper to evaluate your life relative to the lives of others, especially those less fortunate, in order to feel better? Who or what do you take for granted? Are you missing the miracle of life?

]]>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:52:41 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/vgsqs/o-me-o-life-and-being-thankful-for-what-you-havebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/zvsqs/til-the-40-hour-work-week-did-not-originate-from-unions
Today I learned that, contrary to popular belief, a private business owner who made every pair of military business boots for US soldiers in World War I established the 40-hour work week which became the American standard. (The popular belief is that unions created this standard.) Oh! And get this! He was anti-union. When the union tried to organize, 80% of the 15,000 workers voted against the union.

FTA:

The man responsible for instituting the 40-hour-work-week is Massachusetts native of New York George F. Johnson, who announced that no American should have to work more than 40 hours per week. This announcement took effect as a rule on November 1, 1916 in the Endicott-Johnson factories.[4] Johnson had a philosophy to divide all his profits evenly between capital, owners, and workers. 40 hours, to him, represented the even division of a workers' time during the 5 days he gives his time for the production of good.

]]>Sun, 01 Oct 2017 06:43:01 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/zvsqs/til-the-40-hour-work-week-did-not-originate-from-unionsbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/nxsqs/putting-kids-to-work
The economy is in dire straits. Many adults can't find jobs. The government is lying about employment figures. So why would some politician try to repeal an existing law that would bring more people into the workforce? Does she understand that bringing more people into the workforce, especially people who would work for significantly less than what most people get paid, would further exacerbate the unemployment problem? Does she understand that bringing more people into the workforce would also decrease the price/cost of employees (e.g., salaries, benefits) because supply/competition would increase?

Jane Cunningham (R - West County) believes Missouri kids need to improve their work ethic so she's sponsoring a bill (SB 222) that would repeal much of the state's child labor laws.

According to the bill's official summary, children under the age of 14 would no longer be barred from employment. They'd also be able to work all hours of the day, no longer need a work permit from their school and be able to work at motels and resorts so long as they're given a place to lay their weary heads each night. Moreover, businesses that employ children would no longer be subject to inspections from the Division of Labor Standards...

"My aim is to put back some common sense,'' Cunningham told the Beacon. "We're not doing students any favor by telling them, 'You cannot work.' "

Still, the bill is under attack from the AFL-CIO and other labor groups, who believe there's good reason that current law only allows children to work three hours on school days and no more than eight hours on non-school days.

]]>Sat, 30 Sep 2017 15:17:27 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/nxsqs/putting-kids-to-workbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/ndsqs/the-deception-of-higher-education
The typical four-year college degree has large costs, but it's questionable whether the benefits are usually there. In fact, students who secure college degrees are increasingly unlikely to make up the costs, despite higher pay. Should everyone go to college? Would vocational training be more profitable?

FTA:

...the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) has unearthed what I think is the single most scandalous statistic in higher education. It reveals many current problems and ones that will grow enormously as policymakers mindlessly push enrollment expansion amidst what must become greater public-sector resource limits.

Here it is: approximately 60 percent of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to 2008 worked in jobs that the BLS considers relatively low skilled - occupations where many participants have only high school diplomas and often even less. Only a minority of the increment in our nation's stock of college graduates is filling jobs historically considered as requiring a bachelor's degree or more...

Even with alternative assumptions, a majority of the increased college graduate population is doing jobs that historically have been filled by persons with lesser education...

An example or two from specific occupations is useful. In 1992 119,000 waiters and waitresses were college degree holders. By 2008, this number had more than doubled to 318,000...

Take cashiers as well. While 132,000 cashiers possessed college degrees in 1992, by 2008, 365,000 cashiers were college graduates.

...the push to increase the number of college graduates seems horribly misguided from a strict economic/vocational perspective. It is precisely that perspective that is emphasized by those, starting with President Obama, who insist that we need to have more college graduates...

More simply, it takes 18 years of schooling (including kindergarten and the typical fifth year of college to get a bachelor's degree) for persons to get an education to do jobs that a generation or two ago people did with 12-13 years of education...

...all of this supports the notion that credential inflation arises from a perceived need by individuals to demonstrate potential employment competence through a piece of paper, i.e. a college diploma. Employers are using education as a screening and signaling device, at a low cost directly to them (although not costless because of the taxes they pay to sustain much of this), but at a high cost to the perspective employees and to society as a whole...

Many of those advocating more access are well meaning and have pure motives, but they are ignorant of the evidence. But higher education is all about facts, knowledge-learning how the world works and disseminating that information to others. Some in higher education KNOW about all of this and are keeping quiet about it because of their own self-interest. We are deceiving our young population to mindlessly pursue college degrees when very often that is advice that is increasingly questionable."

]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:56:01 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/ndsqs/the-deception-of-higher-educationbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/xdsqs/making-money-from-what-you-love
What do you love? What are your passions? Have any hobbies? Want to make some money from them? With the economy suffering, many continue to look for other income sources. Granted, many of the articles in these so-called "content farms" are generic and lack substance. But that's where your love and passion come into play. Think of all the wonderful thoughts in your mind that you want to share with others (or maybe already do with your own blog). When you go out for dinner or drinks with friends, what do you talk about? Why not turn those conversations into articles? "Some friends of mine were talking about [insert topic] the other day at dinner. [Person A] said she didn't like [insert movie title] because it went against [insert moral dilemma]. [Person B] retorted 'OMG! I loved it!' and went on to explain [insert opposite moral argument]." The key is to fill articles with useful, quality information. But you don't think you're a good writer? The more you write, the more your skills will improve. (Additionally, there are many free style manuals and writing guides on the Web to help you improve your technique, such as Strunk and White's famous book The Elements of Style.) Perhaps you won't make as much as this woman does, but think of all the fun you'll have writing about what you love.

FTA:

When Jodi Jill was laid off from her position as an assistant at a car dealership two years ago, she took a number of odd jobs to pay the bills, from hawking oranges off the Venice exit on the 405 freeway in Southern California to fixing sequins onto costume dresses. She also wrote the occasional article for Examiner, the crowdsourced content play backed by billionaire investor Philip Anschutz.

Fast forward two years and Ms. Jill, who was briefly homeless after being laid off, says she's made just under $100,000 in the past year by writing exclusively for Examiner...

Denver-based Examiner pays its writers anywhere from $1 to $7.50 for every thousand page views their posts generate, based on a black-box formula. The company has a roster of more than 60,000 contributors producing more than 3,000 articles a day.

In the case of Ms. Jill, she posts anywhere form 100 to 130 articles in a week...

The Examiner confirmed Ms. Jill's claim but cautioned that her situation is not typical of its contributors, most of whom write as a hobby and make no more than a few hundred dollars a year...

Above all, Ms. Jill said she has to write what she loves, a lesson she learned after meeting Stan Lee at ComiCon. "I say to him, 'How do you pull all this stuff out, all this stuff you write?' He says to me, 'You write what you love, and there will always be an audience.'

]]>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:14:08 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/xdsqs/making-money-from-what-you-lovebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/v8sqs/child-exploitation
If we are to believe UNICEF, there are about 158 million children aged 5-14 engaged in child labor, "working in hazardous situations or conditions." Most people give this a scary name like "child exploitation." There are plenty of disturbing pictures meant to grab your emotional guilt. But are there circumstances that make child labor a better alternative than not being able to earn any money or develop any skills? Government officials enjoy feelings of pride when they create regulations than prevent children from working, claiming they are protecting the children's rights and interests. Are they? Do they realize that they may be condemning families, and specifically children, to live in poverty (that is, if they don't die from starvation because they can't afford to eat)? Do child labor laws actually make the problems worse for children and their families?

FTA:

In a recent shopping adventure, in search for an addition to our kilim collection, I saw one of those quality-control seals, a "child-labor-free" certification…

One of the first obstacles is defining what actually constitutes child labor. What should the cutoff age be in societies where productive and reproductive life begins very early? In the little towns where these rugs are produced, teen marriage is normal even for boys. And just as it still happens in our own farming communities, helping in the family business starts extremely early. These, however, are technicalities of peripheral importance compared to the main argument, which is that the only reason our children don't have to do this type of labor is that we are wealthier, not because of our child-labor laws nor because we are somehow culturally or racially superior...

Indeed, economic development is the precursor of all things good and humane. This sometimes even includes tangible expressions of parental love - a parent who puts a child behind a loom for ten hours a day does so, not out of callous greed, but because this is what brings food to the table.

Any ban or boycott on oriental rugs, or any other product of child labor, is utterly counterproductive and potentially life-threatening to the very people we are trying to protect. Only economic development can improve the lives of these children, and nothing short of unrestricted free trade will do.

]]>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:07:18 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/v8sqs/child-exploitationbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gksqs/irony-unions-outsource-protesting
Welcome to the bizarre world of union ideology. Unions are hiring unemployed people at the minimum wage to walk picket lines. (Snicker.) Why aren't they being paid union rates? I personally think these professional picketers should unionize. (Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle.) Kind of makes you rethink how much people are really supporting a particular protest when you see them, doesn't it? Could it be that many protesters aren't there based on ideology, but simply for the money? The most important question is this: does Obama get to count these people in his employment figures to bolster his claim that he is creating jobs?

FTA: "Protest organizers and advocacy groups are reaping an unexpected benefit from continued high joblessness. With the national unemployment rate currently at 9.5%, an "endless supply" of the out-of-work, as well as retirees seeking extra income, are lining up to be paid demonstrators... Online postings recruit paid activists for everything from stopping offshore drilling to defending the Constitution. In California, one group is offering to pay $10 and up per hour to activists to hold signs in demonstrations against foam cups and plastic bags... The union's Mr. Garcia sees no conflict in a union that insists on union labor hiring nonunion people to protest the hiring of nonunion labor."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 12:30:55 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/gksqs/irony-unions-outsource-protestingbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/c0sqs/unemployed-work-for-free
It's the typical Catch-22. You can't get hired for a job because you have limited experience, and you can't get experience until you get a job. It appears there are many young people who are having problems finding jobs. And graduating from school with large debt and no income source to repay leads to great stress and demotivation. In an economy with many experienced, well-educated, unemployed people, it's difficult to compete for the limited job openings. What do you do about it? Here's a suggestion: work for free. What do you think?

FTA: "With young people nearly shut out of the market (by recession, regulation, and ghastly minimum wage and child labor laws), I would like to suggest the unthinkable: young people should work for free wherever they can and whenever they can. The reason is to acquire a good reputation and earn a good recommendation. A person who will give you a positive reference on demand is worth gold, and certainly far more than the money you might otherwise earn."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:39:27 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/c0sqs/unemployed-work-for-freebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/w0sqs/limiting-kids-opportunities
The owner of a Connecticut pizzeria, accused of violating state child labor laws by having his kids work in the restaurant, is suing the state on grounds the laws violate his constitutional rights. Is this something the government should be involved in? Is it proper to have government laws that prevent children from working?

FTA: "[The Department of Labor] told him that his children could not be seen assisting their parents in the restaurant, under state statutes that prohibit the employment of minors in certain occupations... Clinton attorney Raymond Rigat, who is representing the Nuzzos, said the couple's children are with them after school Fridays and on Saturdays, and do not operate dangerous equipment, are not paid wages and are under the direct supervision of their parents and occasionally their grandparents... The Nuzzos are asking the federal court for a ruling preventing the state from prohibiting their children from "learning the pizza trade under their parents' tutelage at their restaurant," as the suit reads."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:17:49 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/w0sqs/limiting-kids-opportunitiesbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/cssqs/the-ideology-of-carrots-and-sticks
This animation drawing alone is enough reason to watch this video, even if you have no interest in the topic. It's amazing...

FTV: "As long as the task involved used only mechanical skill... the higher the pay, the better the performance. That makes sense... But once the task called for rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance. Now this is strange, right? ...these folks here who did this are all economists - two at MIT, one at the University of Chicago, one at Carnegie Mellon - the top tier of the economics profession... they're saying that, once you get above rudimentary cognitive skill, it's the other way around... the idea that rewards don't work that way seems to be vaguely left-wing and socialist... I want to point out the left-wing, socialist organization that financed the research: the Federal Reserve Bank. This defies the laws of behavioral physics. ...when the task gets more complicated, when it requires some conceptual, creative thinking, those kind of motivators, demonstrably, don't work. There are three factors that lead to better performance... autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Autonomy is our desire to be self-directed... to direct our own lives... management is great if you want compliance. But if you want engagement... self-direction is better... One day of autonomy produces things that would have never emerged... Mastery is our urge to get better at stuff. We like to get better at stuff. ...more and more organizations want to have some kind of transcendent purpose, partly because it makes coming to work better, partly because that's the way to get better talent. ...when the profit motive becomes unmoored from the purpose motive, bad things happen... bad things ethically sometimes... but also bad things... like crappy products... like lame services..."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:16:02 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/cssqs/the-ideology-of-carrots-and-sticksbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/yssqs/rats-and-the-rat-race
In the future, will you look back, shake your head, and regret that you didn't follow your passions? Feel that you went against who you really wanted to be? Don't wait until another New Year's Eve - there's no better time than the present ot change.

FTA: "Man was made to embrace his unique destiny, not soldier on as a hamster in a wheel. Or in the words of Lily Tomlin, “The problem with the rat race is that even if you win, you’re still a rat.” So if a vocation is something that calls to you-who is doing the calling? And how do you listen to its voice? ...Embracing your calling means shutting off the voices of what others say you ought to do and living true to your real self. Not imitating dad or other men you admire. We take seriously everything but our own thoughts and beliefs-we drink up what our teachers tell us, what our parents tell us, what our ministers tell us. We eagerly lap up quotes from great men. We... dismiss our own insights and philosophy as hopelessly insignificant."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:04:54 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/yssqs/rats-and-the-rat-racebraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/sssqs/learning-how-to-work
FTA: "U.S. colleges and universities, like their counterparts in other Western countries, are doing a poor job of preparing graduates for today's workplace. The biggest weakness in the postsecondary-education sector in all countries is the lack of experience in today's workplace by those who are responsible for education policy, funding, administration, and delivery... Nichols College in Massachusetts is an excellent example of how to prepare students for today's workplace. Its students are required to take four career-related courses before they can graduate. They must also build up a portfolio of their employable skills during their years at the college. And finally, they are coached on how to successfully use their portfolio in a job interview. These people are light years ahead of other U.S. colleges and universities and their counterparts around the world."

]]>Tue, 26 Sep 2017 08:17:15 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/sssqs/learning-how-to-workbraincravehttps://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/7cqqs/effects-of-automation-on-the-future
People continue to be laid-off from their jobs. Automation is increasing. Things made by hand are decreasing. The costs to produce (copy) some items is very close to zero (e.g., music and books).

Given this potential for automation, does the future potentially hold a limit on the amount of value most people will be able to contribute? As lower value jobs decrease due to automation, while higher value jobs require ever-greater skills and knowledge (e.g., scientists, engineers), what do you think will happen? Is it possible that many industries will rely almost completely on automation? What does increased automation mean for people's future?

]]>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:37:17 -0500https://valme.io/c/relationships/dating/braincrave/rcqqs/reliable-workers-banned-as-discriminatorybraincravehttps://valme.io/c/note-to-self/t5qqs/rules-of-success-to-adopt-by-age-13
I don't agree with everything on his list, but included are many great principles.

Here is why you should take me seriously. I was born in 1942. I have seen what works and what doesn't.

I have a Ph.D. I am rich by most Americans' standards. I have never been divorced. I am in good health -- and have been since age 9. I am content with my life. There is nothing that I want that I cannot not pay cash for. I spend almost no money on buying consumer goods, except for used books, because I own everything I want, and I have for 30 years.

Take my advice.

I could list these rules by order of importance or by chronology. I chose chronology. You must get into good habits now. Start where you are.

As they did with their previous work, collective members Vicky Virgin, Julian Boilen, Susan Jahoda, Blair Murphy, and Caroline Woolard analyzed data from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Specifically, they looked through a publicly available slice of that data (the 2012 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample). From that sample they extrapolated their numbers about the larger population, estimating that there are a total of 1.4 million people in the US who self-identify as having a primary occupation of “writer, author, artist, actor, photographer, musician, singer, producer, director, performer, dancer, choreographer, [or] entertainer” — the group’s definition of a “working artist” for this report.

According to BFAMFAPhD’s analysis, a very small percentage of art school undergraduates end up as working artists (~10%), and that fully 40% of working artists over age 25 don’t even have undergraduate degrees of any kind, let alone art degrees. So why on earth would anyone spend so much money on such a degree?

...

All of this makes it really tough to understand what income really means for an artist when you’re trying to isolate their artistic earnings. So even reporting modest numbers like the fact that working artists with degrees in New York City make a median income of $25,000 (as BFAMFAPhD did in their earlier data analysis), if you dig into that number for each individual, the sources of that money are likely to be highly variable and rarely exclusively from creative output. That all makes it tricky when you want to present young people with a clear picture of their earning prospects from artistic work.

Which is to say, income numbers that add everything together can run the risk of inadvertently supporting what I wholeheartedly agree is a fantasy of steady, lifelong earnings from art-making alone.